1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to animal husbandry specifically to effective locking mechanisms within retaining devices for pets commonly known as tie-outs.
2. Description of Prior Art
The plethora of previous designs, configurations, and inventions pertaining to dog leashes and retaining devices has made tremendous progress toward a truly comprehensive approach to retaining pets while allowing them to pivot 360 degrees, remain secured, while providing a safe means to mowing lawns and maintaining a xe2x80x9cflushxe2x80x9d surface with the ground when xe2x80x9cinner-sleevesxe2x80x9d are removed. Prior art almost accomplishes this goal. However, the locking mechanisms inherent in the prior art prevent them from accomplishing all five of the most important characteristics of safe and easy retention at one time. Those characteristics are: it must easily pivot 360 degrees to prevent tangling, remain adjacent to the ground level once the inner-sleeve is removed for child safety and ease of mowing, effectively prevent the dog from pulling out the inner-sleeve while providing a means to xe2x80x9cdisengagexe2x80x9d the upward motion of the inner-sleeve when it is inadvertently initiated by the dog or pet, provide plurality of outer-sleeves for ready movement and transition to other locations, and to provide a water resistant approach to enhance product longevity.
Any one prior invention accomplishes one or more of these objectives, however, not one of the previous inventions accomplishes all five of these objectives. Thus the need for a cost effective new invention that includes the advantages of prior art, greatly reduces the disadvantages, and provides a means for aggressive competition to the primitive tie-outs that currently saturate the pet industry becomes evident.
Perhaps the five closest resemblances are U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,982,701 and 5,044,323 to Papak, U.S. Pat. No. 3,658,037 to Hunter, U.S. Pat. No. 5,353,747 to Fain, and U.S. Pat. No. 3,042,161 to Meyer Jr. Certainly others contain similar features as the aforementioned such as U.S. Pat. No. 3,189,004 to Sinclair, U.S. Pat. No. 4,060,244 to Graham, and perhaps even U.S. Pat. No. 4,497,152 to Weissner. However, the five aforementioned suffice to vividly establish the need for a more comprehensive approach to the aforementioned five most important characteristics with particular emphasis on the locking mechanisms.
While Papak""s designs are certainly an improvement in some respects they still leave two inherent problems. Most importantly his spiral or threading approach demands that the tubular member as seen in FIG. 3 and FIG. 5 remain above the surface of the ground and not adjacent to the ground surface. Obviously this impedes to some degree one""s ability to mow safely even though it is low to the ground it is not xe2x80x9cflushxe2x80x9d. It also allows for an unsafe environment for children that could trip over it. Secondly, Papak""s most recent design on rare occasion could become dislodged if the dog creates a whip effect on the leash and consequently raises the stake just enough to engage it with the spiral ridge.
At this moment the dog need only to continue in circular motion to dislodge the stake. Certainly this would be difficult. Papak accomplishes three of the five objectives but slightly misses providing a means to automatically disengage inadvertent upward motion, and creates a potentially more unsafe environment by allowing the tubular member to remain above the surface of the ground.
While Hunter""s work is an improvement over prior art particularly in its ability to pivot freely it does not contain any specific means to ensure that the rod portion of his device cannot come out of the sleeve. His design relies on the weight of the rod to prevent inadvertent upward removal. Therein lay two inherent dilemmas. First, anyone skilled in the field would readily ascertain that while the weight of the rod is a deterrent to inadvertent upward removal it is still very possible for a dog to create inadvertent upward motion and bend the inner tubular member. Secondly, the solid rod can be costly thus deterring major manufacturers from investing in mass production. Ultimately this discourages competition to the very basic tie-outs that currently dominate the market.
The presence of an effective locking mechanism would allow for less dependence on such heavy solid material and decrease costs while improving the security of the device.
Fain like Hunter certainly provided some improvement over prior art but lacked the provision for an effective locking mechanism to prevent inadvertent upward motion and removal.
Meyer Jr. produced a very effective means anchoring. However, it cannot pivot 360 degrees in either the above the ground position or the adjacent ground position because of it inherent need to lock into place. For this reason it becomes impractical for retaining animals because it cannot pivot continually.
While some prior art provides pivoting capabilities, ground level adjacency, limited locking capabilities, plurality for ready movement, and water resistant concepts, none of the prior art effectively combines all of these characteristics into one device with particular attention drawn to the area of the locking systems. It is therefore the primary object of this invention to provide a more effective locking system for the device that decreases the likelihood of the inadvertent upward motion of the inner tubular member while including all of the advantages of prior art without the described disadvantages. It also the object of this invention to provide an adequate device that is economical enough to compete with the existing commercially available tie-out stale that provide only few of the above advantages and many of the above disadvantages.